I guess the new strategy is the same as the old one: get all the homeless you can off the street and let the rest starve. The goal of ending homelessness is not necessarily compatible with the goal of helping the homeless.

"InnVision/Shelter Network really prides ourselves on running our organization like a business," said Maria Duzon, the organization's marketing director. "We have a service model that works like a science if you have enough staff and focused services. We are committed to using metrics-based, research-based practices to do the best by our donors and clients."

We had a guy in town who had the brilliant idea of renting like a hundred units in a mini-storage place, and then charging homeless people $5 a night to sleep there. Eventually the city's code enforcement department shut his operation down.

BumpInTheNight:So a better equipped organization who's vision is to teach the man to fish rather then continuously hand him a fish wants to move in. I'm okay with that.

This. It sounds like the displaced organization was run by liberals who want to continue to "feel good" about giving people food and the displacing organization is run by conservatives who want to help move the homeless out of being homeless. A hand out vs. a hand up. How dare they try to help people!

This is unacceptable! Who do these people think they are trying to give the homeless marketable skills? Don't they know that the jobs market is tighter than a virgin's ? I don't need more bloody competition out there!

Darth_Lukecash:"InnVision/Shelter Network really prides ourselves on running our organization like a business," said Maria Duzon, the organization's marketing director. "We have a service model that works like a science if you have enough staff and focused services. We are committed to using metrics-based, research-based practices to do the best by our donors and clients."

We do not "give" unemployment checks... you pay for unemployment insurance out of each and every paycheck. I'm tired of the GOP trying to further the logic that expecting something that you paid for is somehow unreasonable, irrational, or greedy. When I give the cashier at the grocery store my money, I'm entitled to the food in my cart... when I give the government money for insurance, whether SSI, Medicare, or unemployment, you damn well better believe that I'm entitled to what I paid for. I'm tired of you dirtbags trying to give working class people a bad name just because they expect the government to do something useful with their money instead of frittering it away on cronies, defense contractors, and the already rich.

chaosweaver:This is unacceptable! Who do these people think they are trying to give the homeless marketable skills? Don't they know that the jobs market is tighter than a virgin's ? I don't need more bloody competition out there!

Lisle called the San Mateo theory a "cheap shot," noting that she had spent three days last week in San Jose. "This has been a very difficult entrance into the community," she said, "having someone call me out."

Well, you know everything you need to know then about San Jose homeless. Three days.

sporkme:"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

--Terry Pratchett

Bureaucracy and competition among charities? SHOCKING.

And yes, you do want to run a charity like a business to maximize efficiency and minimize overhead costs.

Though businesses frequently can operate by scheduling needs and addressing those needs at a scheduled time, when people find themselves without food, if you reschedule meeting that need for a month down the road, they're dead, and you're not really a charity at all. If the Red Cross operated like a consulting firm, and when an earthquake hit, they said they'd be out there in a few weeks, but they could come sooner for a pretty hefty fee, they'd be profiteers and assholes, but for some reason you can't see that when it comes to helping poor people on a normal day, when they're having a personal disaster, but everyone else is doing ok.

We do not "give" unemployment checks... you pay for unemployment insurance out of each and every paycheck. I'm tired of the GOP trying to further the logic that expecting something that you paid for is somehow unreasonable, irrational, or greedy. When I give the cashier at the grocery store my money, I'm entitled to the food in my cart... when I give the government money for insurance, whether SSI, Medicare, or unemployment, you damn well better believe that I'm entitled to what I paid for. I'm tired of you dirtbags trying to give working class people a bad name just because they expect the government to do something useful with their money instead of frittering it away on cronies, defense contractors, and the already rich.

I'm Conservative, and will agree. Unemployment insurance, is just that, insurance. You don't get to collect on it if you never paid in.

We do not "give" unemployment checks... you pay for unemployment insurance out of each and every paycheck. I'm tired of the GOP trying to further the logic that expecting something that you paid for is somehow unreasonable, irrational, or greedy. When I give the cashier at the grocery store my money, I'm entitled to the food in my cart... when I give the government money for insurance, whether SSI, Medicare, or unemployment, you damn well better believe that I'm entitled to what I paid for. I'm tired of you dirtbags trying to give working class people a bad name just because they expect the government to do something useful with their money instead of frittering it away on cronies, defense contractors, and the already rich.

I'm Conservative, and will agree. Unemployment insurance, is just that, insurance. You don't get to collect on it if you never paid in.

it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

We do not "give" unemployment checks... you pay for unemployment insurance out of each and every paycheck. I'm tired of the GOP trying to further the logic that expecting something that you paid for is somehow unreasonable, irrational, or greedy. When I give the cashier at the grocery store my money, I'm entitled to the food in my cart... when I give the government money for insurance, whether SSI, Medicare, or unemployment, you damn well better believe that I'm entitled to what I paid for. I'm tired of you dirtbags trying to give working class people a bad name just because they expect the government to do something useful with their money instead of frittering it away on cronies, defense contractors, and the already rich.

I'm Conservative, and will agree. Unemployment insurance, is just that, insurance. You don't get to collect on it if you never paid in.

it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

It doesn't change the point that you can't collect unless you've paid into it. Whether you paid most of it, or your employer, you don't get to collect if you haven't been working and contributing.

We do not "give" unemployment checks... you pay for unemployment insurance out of each and every paycheck. I'm tired of the GOP trying to further the logic that expecting something that you paid for is somehow unreasonable, irrational, or greedy. When I give the cashier at the grocery store my money, I'm entitled to the food in my cart... when I give the government money for insurance, whether SSI, Medicare, or unemployment, you damn well better believe that I'm entitled to what I paid for. I'm tired of you dirtbags trying to give working class people a bad name just because they expect the government to do something useful with their money instead of frittering it away on cronies, defense contractors, and the already rich.

I'm Conservative, and will agree. Unemployment insurance, is just that, insurance. You don't get to collect on it if you never paid in.

it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

If you don't think there's cost-forwarding with wages, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Zeb Hesselgresser:it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

In California, where this story is set, the employer pays 100% into the UI fund. That being said, it's still insurance and doesn't get bought and paid for unless the individual was working/employed. If you buy insurance, or your employer buys insurance for you, is qualifying to use it and then using it somehow a freebee? I don't think so.

red5ish:Zeb Hesselgresser: it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

In California, where this story is set, the employer pays 100% into the UI fund. That being said, it's still insurance and doesn't get bought and paid for unless the individual was working/employed. If you buy insurance, or your employer buys insurance for you, is qualifying to use it and then using it somehow a freebee? I don't think so.

Even where it's employer funded (it is here in CO), I can assure you that the math figures into wages when you decide how much you're going to pay a person, especially given the way unemployment payout is structured. Employers do bear some of the cost, but denying there's cost forwarding to the employee just seems beyond the bounds of reason... I can't for the life of me understand how the conservatives understand cost forwarding when it comes to things like cutting wages/hours because of ObamaCare, but they all of a sudden forget how cost forwarding works when it comes to things like unemployment insurance. I see your selectively applied logic, and raise you a pancake astronaut.

firefly212:red5ish: Zeb Hesselgresser: it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

In California, where this story is set, the employer pays 100% into the UI fund. That being said, it's still insurance and doesn't get bought and paid for unless the individual was working/employed. If you buy insurance, or your employer buys insurance for you, is qualifying to use it and then using it somehow a freebee? I don't think so.

Even where it's employer funded (it is here in CO), I can assure you that the math figures into wages when you decide how much you're going to pay a person, especially given the way unemployment payout is structured. Employers do bear some of the cost, but denying there's cost forwarding to the employee just seems beyond the bounds of reason... I can't for the life of me understand how the conservatives understand cost forwarding when it comes to things like cutting wages/hours because of ObamaCare, but they all of a sudden forget how cost forwarding works when it comes to things like unemployment insurance. I see your selectively applied logic, and raise you a pancake astronaut.

BumpInTheNight:So a better equipped organization who's vision is to teach the man to fish rather then continuously hand him a fish wants to move in. I'm okay with that.

And part of the long term solution will keep people out of the creeks. I understand that SJ has a long standing issue with amount of homeless people living in creek beds. Evidently the water supply has become ahhh..... tainted.

muck4doo:firefly212: red5ish: Zeb Hesselgresser: it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

In California, where this story is set, the employer pays 100% into the UI fund. That being said, it's still insurance and doesn't get bought and paid for unless the individual was working/employed. If you buy insurance, or your employer buys insurance for you, is qualifying to use it and then using it somehow a freebee? I don't think so.

Even where it's employer funded (it is here in CO), I can assure you that the math figures into wages when you decide how much you're going to pay a person, especially given the way unemployment payout is structured. Employers do bear some of the cost, but denying there's cost forwarding to the employee just seems beyond the bounds of reason... I can't for the life of me understand how the conservatives understand cost forwarding when it comes to things like cutting wages/hours because of ObamaCare, but they all of a sudden forget how cost forwarding works when it comes to things like unemployment insurance. I see your selectively applied logic, and raise you a pancake astronaut.

It's not all conservatives. Don't use the broad brush.

My apologies, I've been a little frustrated by others in the conservative movement portraying a push towards efficiency and accountability from the government as somehow greedy. It is almost like the anti-Obama crowd (I will use that term instead of conservatives) is hellbent on portraying any expectation of getting some bang for the buck out of the government as unamerican, or selfish.

muck4doo:firefly212: red5ish: Zeb Hesselgresser: it can be a little different in some states, but the most popular models are 99% employer funded. The employees contribution to the fund is fairly insignificant. Sorry.

In California, where this story is set, the employer pays 100% into the UI fund. That being said, it's still insurance and doesn't get bought and paid for unless the individual was working/employed. If you buy insurance, or your employer buys insurance for you, is qualifying to use it and then using it somehow a freebee? I don't think so.

Even where it's employer funded (it is here in CO), I can assure you that the math figures into wages when you decide how much you're going to pay a person, especially given the way unemployment payout is structured. Employers do bear some of the cost, but denying there's cost forwarding to the employee just seems beyond the bounds of reason... I can't for the life of me understand how the conservatives understand cost forwarding when it comes to things like cutting wages/hours because of ObamaCare, but they all of a sudden forget how cost forwarding works when it comes to things like unemployment insurance. I see your selectively applied logic, and raise you a pancake astronaut.

It's not all conservatives. Don't use the broad brush.

I wasn't judging, just splaining where the funds come from. I collected once, it was a huge part of keeping my life together during a tailspin, good program

The concept of get people off the streets and house them while feeding and clothing them is noble, but I cant imagine there are enough beds to do this for everyone. The article says the larger charity only has 85 beds. What happens to the folks that are on a waiting list or have otherwise fallen through the cracks? These soup kitchens that serve meals only have their purpose. Namely to keep people from starving. I dont see the point of having one large charity evict a smaller charity. Surely there are enough homeless folks in that city that they would be better served if both charities were functioning.

I've donated to Shelter Network in the past and believe they are a good organization who just didn't think this through. Waiting until March, using actual, compassionate language instead of hostile MBA-speak to describe their methods, and working to relocate Loaves & Fishes in the mean time would've been best for everyone. I am guessing that they wanted the good publicity that comes with "look at these people we helped get off the street and into housing for Christmas," and didn't take into account the bad publicity that goes with "GTFO, you outdated, inefficient soup kitchen! Our methods are proven best practices that utilize transparency and innovative metrics to maximize efficiency and return maximum shareholder, I mean, donor value!!!"

Darth_Lukecash:"InnVision/Shelter Network really prides ourselves on running our organization like a business," said Maria Duzon, the organization's marketing director. "We have a service model that works like a science if you have enough staff and focused services. We are committed to using metrics-based, research-based practices to do the best by our donors and clients."

What we need are self sustaining homeless shelters that are powered by hobo-run generators attached to stationary bicycles that give them exercise and have hoses to spray the crap out of their pants at the same time.

BarkingUnicorn:Darth_Lukecash: "InnVision/Shelter Network really prides ourselves on running our organization like a business," said Maria Duzon, the organization's marketing director. "We have a service model that works like a science if you have enough staff and focused services. We are committed to using metrics-based, research-based practices to do the best by our donors and clients."